Accusing Roy Moore's Accusers: What the Evidence Show So Far...

[edpc]

The only "child molestation" (Note the quotes ) we can say is his dating 17 and 18 year olds ( AGE OF CONSENT IN ALABAMA IS 16 ) with the permission of their parents. The girls did not even object to dating him.

Right, but now he denies dating or even knowing them.  So instead of being a molester, he's just an incredible liar.

[Emjay]

The only problem with the above statement is IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN or SHOWN that he is a Child molester.

The only "child molestation" (Note the quotes ) we can say is his dating 17 and 18 year olds ( AGE OF CONSENT IN ALABAMA IS 16 ) with the permission of their parents. The girls did not even object to dating him.

So, no it's not a very difficult decision to make at all.

I just read the post by @CatherineofAragon because you quoted it.  One of the reasons I have her on ignore is this kind of convoluted  reasoning, skillfully combined with an insult.

There has been no accusation of child abuse and a gal of 16 or 17 in Alabama is hardly a child.

But, to be kind, I think Catherine has become unhinged by this whole subject.  I'm sure she couldn't stand Roy Moore before this ever came out and was beside herself with joy about these accusations.

There has been no valid proof that these lame accusations are even true but I do not want another Dem in the Senate who is all over supporting Planned Parenthood and baby killing.

It is a binary choice.

[DiogenesLamp]

Right, but now he denies dating or even knowing them.  So instead of being a molester, he's just an incredible liar.

The possibility that he might be mistaken or might not remember someone simply doesn't occur to you?   


Also,  it occurs to me that people may conflate two different meanings together.    When Roy Moore is referring to "those women",   he is very likely referring to the ones who made accusations against him regarding sexual impropriety.    He may not be referring to the women he merely dated.   The ones making no salacious claims against him are irrelevant to this matter.   


But in the gotcha world of modern journalism,  people may be deliberately applying his statement intended to refer to just the two women,   to the other five who said they merely dated,  and on the basis of this faulty presumption,  calling him a liar. 



 

[DiogenesLamp]

@Emjay

No, it’s not.  It’s murder. 

But see, the great thing is that you don’t have to vote for a child molester OR a person who supports murder, unless you just believe politics is the most important thing in life and you need politicians to save you.

Yes,  you can always refuse to intervene in a matter that has the potential to make baby murder more difficult.   


You would have us believe that is the more moral choice.   





Edit:   


Forgot to "ping" you.   Silly me,  I thought replying to a message would do that automatically.   

@CatherineofAragon

[DiogenesLamp]

The only problem with the above statement is IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN or SHOWN that he is a Child molester.

People accusing witches don't need any proof.    The accusation is sufficient to convict a "witch."   


@CatherineofAragon

[Emjay]

Yes,  you can always refuse to intervene in a matter that has the potential to make baby murder more difficult.   


You would have us believe that is the more moral choice.   





Edit:   


Forgot to "ping" you.   Silly me,  I thought replying to a message would do that automatically.   

@CatherineofAragon

It's hilarious that people who have no problem calling other people horrible names are sticklers for what they consider propriety about pinging.

I'm with you.  In an ongoing discussion in which a post is quoted, I think it's safe to assume that the person participating in the discussion knows you are answering him or her.

[edpc]

The possibility that he might be mistaken or might not remember someone simply doesn't occur to you?   


Also,  it occurs to me that people may conflate two different meanings together.    When Roy Moore is referring to "those women",   he is very likely referring to the ones who made accusations against him regarding sexual impropriety.    He may not be referring to the women he merely dated.   The ones making no salacious claims against him are irrelevant to this matter.   


But in the gotcha world of modern journalism,  people may be deliberately applying his statement intended to refer to just the two women,   to the other five who said they merely dated,  and on the basis of this faulty presumption,  calling him a liar. 

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/12/04/roy-moore-accuser-just-found-note-moore-wrote-17/

This story covers how he said he knew two, maybe dated, doesn't remember, but if we did, we did, but they're lying - I don't know any of them, never dated them, or did anything improper.

Forget the accusations of improper conduct. He contorts and contradicts himself ridiculously without them.  If you can't see that, you're being willfully ignorant.

[SirLinksALot]

So, after these back and forth, can we at least dispense with this "Child Molester" accusation?

[DiogenesLamp]

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/12/04/roy-moore-accuser-just-found-note-moore-wrote-17/

This story covers how he said he knew two, maybe dated, doesn't remember, but if we did, we did, but they're lying - I don't know any of them, never dated them, or did anything improper.

Forget the accusations of improper conduct. He contorts and contradicts himself ridiculously without them.  If you can't see that, you're being willfully ignorant.

If a man doesn't clearly remember,   he might believe that he doesn't know any of these women.   No doubt they don't quite look as they did 38 YEARS AGO.   


His claims regarding "the old Hickory House"   have been validated from three other witnesses.    The Kook bat Gibson who only claims they "dated"   is a known Democrat loon,  whom I believe called the Washington Post in an effort to start this whole mess.   


What is willfully ignorant is refusing to give the man the benefit of the doubt regarding 11th hour accusations with no substantiating evidence to support them.   

[DiogenesLamp]

So, after these back and forth, can we at least dispense with this "Child Molester" accusation?

The accusation is a weapon that they will only grudgingly relinquish,   If that. 

[aligncare]

Right, but now he denies dating or even knowing them.  So instead of being a molester, he's just an incredible liar.

I disagree. Moore is smartly refusing to give the conspirators to his political destruction the rope with which to hang him on a phony charge of “child molestation.”

The conspirators are not playing by the rules, why should Moore quietly go along with his own destruction?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

You made the assertion.  You back it up.   You say it's not crazy clown lady on which you base your opinion,  so the onus is on you to tell us who you are believing in this "Roy was banned from the Mall"  assertion.   

And I don't read Gateway Pundit except when it is linked from another site,  and only then if it has something of interest. 





 
I replied to one of your messages.  Are you telling me this didn't ping you when I replied?   




I never stop.   You wouldn 't be able to keep up.

That poster has no chance of winning, and it is fun watching him/her/it squirm to high heaven.

Had a crazy cousin once who did the same thing.  Hilarious fun to view.

[edpc]

So, after these back and forth, can we at least dispense with this "Child Molester" accusation?

I never bought into that 100%, especially with Allred involved.  My contention has always been with dating girls that young at his age.  It's weird to me even if its legal.  However, he's been caught lying about it.  Unfortunately, that dings his credibility and causes people to question the other allegations again. 

He should have denied the allegations, but owned up to the dating which was legal and by the accounts of the two girls, uneventful.  Let the voters decide if that's a problem for them.

[Silver Pines]

@Emjay

I just read the post by @CatherineofAragon because you quoted it.  One of the reasons I have her on ignore is this kind of convoluted  reasoning, skillfully combined with an insult.

You don't have me on ignore.  Even if you pressed a button, which I don't believe, you're responding to my posts, which is the opposite of ignoring.

T

here has been no accusation of child abuse and a gal of 16 or 17 in Alabama is hardly a child.

And the sky is green.

But, to be kind, I think Catherine has become unhinged by this whole subject.  I'm sure she couldn't stand Roy Moore before this ever came out and was beside herself with joy about these accusations.

You don't have a kind bone in your body---just swollen-up rotten tubing filled with passive-aggressive bile. 

I said at the beginning of this thing that I didn't know much about Moore.  He's in Alabama, I'm in Virginia and I don't keep up with Alabama politics.  From what I'd heard, he did strike me as a grandstander.

However, if I had harbored a thorough dislike for the man, that would have been fine.  Just as it's fine to dislike Trump.  It's time to stop acting as though disapproval of public servants is some kind of moral failing.

But ask yourself how your statement makes any sense.  Why would I be "beside myself with joy" over anything involving a politician?  Are you so wrapped up in politics that something a politician does could produce such an intense reaction?  Is that normal to you?

There has been no valid proof that these lame accusations are even true but I do not want another Dem in the Senate who is all over supporting Planned Parenthood and baby killing.

It is a binary choice.

Wrong.  No one is holding a gun to anyone's head in Alabama to force them to vote for a child molester or a person who favors killing infants.   

Since you seem to be another who doesn't understand that Moore isn't being judged by legal standards, let's go with legal standards.  Testimony is a form of evidence, and people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence (testimony) alone.  In the case of Moore, the evidence---testimony---is corroborated by quite a few individuals.  The Post's article is pretty much airtight.

Also, all of the lawsuits Moore threatened to bring never came to fruition.  And the women, who some predicted would disappear, haven't done so and are still speaking out.

[Silver Pines]

Yes,  you can always refuse to intervene in a matter that has the potential to make baby murder more difficult.   


You would have us believe that is the more moral choice.   





Edit:   


Forgot to "ping" you.   Silly me,  I thought replying to a message would do that automatically.   

@CatherineofAragon

@DiogenesLamp


Why would you think that when I explained to you twice that it doesn't?  I thought you were a quick learner, or something.

Baby murder is wrong.  Stay far away from it.

Child molestation is wrong.  Stay far away from it.

Simple.

[Silver Pines]

People accusing witches don't need any proof.    The accusation is sufficient to convict a "witch."   


@CatherineofAragon

@DiogenesLamp

"Since you seem to be another who doesn't understand that Moore isn't being judged by legal standards, let's go with legal standards.  Testimony is a form of evidence, and people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence (testimony) alone.  In the case of Moore, the evidence---testimony---is corroborated by quite a few individuals.  The Post's article is pretty much airtight."

[Silver Pines]

It's hilarious that people who have no problem calling other people horrible names are sticklers for what they consider propriety about pinging.

I'm with you.  In an ongoing discussion in which a post is quoted, I think it's safe to assume that the person participating in the discussion knows you are answering him or her.

@Emjay

Still not on ignore.  Huh.

[Restored]

Wrong.  No one is holding a gun to anyone's head in Alabama to force them to vote for a child molester or a person who favors killing infants.   

[Silver Pines]

So, after these back and forth, can we at least dispense with this "Child Molester" accusation?

@SirLinksALot

No way.

[Restored]

@SirLinksALot

No way.

She's like a pit bull on a toddler.

[Silver Pines]

That poster has no chance of winning, and it is fun watching him/her/it squirm to high heaven.

Had a crazy cousin once who did the same thing.  Hilarious fun to view.

@IsailedawayfromFR

What are you talking about, "winning?"  Who are you, Charlie Sheen?

I guess today, to be sane in today's GOP, you have to love child molesters.  All I can tell you is, enjoy, because that won't be me.

[Silver Pines]

She's like a pit bull on a toddler.
[/quote

@Restored

Stop with the compliments.  Flattery won't get you anywhere.

[Emjay]

She's like a pit bull on a toddler.

Be kind ...  she's lost her mind.

[DiogenesLamp]

@DiogenesLamp


Why would you think that when I explained to you twice that it doesn't?  I thought you were a quick learner, or something.

I recall you explaining it once,  and that after I had already done it.   If you explained it before somewhere else,   I must have missed it,  you see,  I don't bother with "pings".   I look at the threads.   I see my "Profile [147] " is up to 147.   I guess I should clear it out or something.   I've done that before,  but I do not have a habit of checking it.   


So far as learning is concerned,  I try to confine what I learn to things I perceive as important or useful,  and obviously that is a subjective criteria, my preferences of which might not be the same as yours. 

Baby murder is wrong.  Stay far away from it.

Child molestation is wrong.  Stay far away from it.

Simple.

Choices are wrong.  Don't make them.    Let the default evil win.   


Let the world burn.   

[Restored]

The Democrat supports the killing of unborn children
The Republican has never been accused of child molestation.

That's your choices.